MAY CATACUTAN YONZON TORRES, AKA May Yonzon Torres v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY CATACUTAN YONZON
TORRES, AKA May Yonzon Torres,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-71686
Agency No. A042-062-268
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
May Catacutan Yonzon Torres, a native and citizen of the Philippines,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for
withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, Fakhry v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1057, 1062
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that, even if Torres was a
member of a particular social group, she failed to establish her membership in this
group was at least one central reason for her claimed persecution. See
Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[T]o demonstrate
that a protected ground was ‘at least one central reason’ for persecution, an
applicant must prove that such ground was a cause of the persecutors’ acts.”).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Torres failed to
establish it is more likely than not she would be persecuted if returned to the
Philippines. See Fakhry, 524 F.3d at 1066 (evidence did not compel a finding that
it was more likely than not petitioner would be persecuted). Thus, Torres’s
withholding of removal claim fails.
Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
because Torres failed to establish it is more likely than not that she would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to the
Philippines. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 11-71686

-- 2 of 2 --